# Mims v. Bradshaw

> District Court, W.D. Arkansas · April 8, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632157

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 8, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632157

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

JEREMY PAUL MIMS (a/k/a ABDULLAH PLAINTIFF
AL KARIM)

v. Civil No. 6:20-cv-06144

DIRECTOR JERRY BRADSHAW, et. al. DEFENDANTS

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This is a civil rights action provisionally filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to
the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3)(2011), the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, Chief
United States District Judge, referred this case to the undersigned for the purpose of making a
Report and Recommendation.
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s failure to obey a Court Order and failure to
prosecute this case.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on December 7, 2020. (ECF No. 1). On February 8, 2021,
Plaintiff called the Clerk for another case he had pending in this District, and indicated he was no
longer incarcerated. (Case No. 6:20-CV-06169). The Clerk corrected his address for this case as
well. On February 18, 2021, the Court entered an Order directing Plaintiff to submit a new in
forma pauperis (“IFP”) application reflecting his free-world financial status by March 11, 2021.
(ECF No. 14). In the Order, Plaintiff was advised that failure to either submit the IFP application
or pay the filing fee would result in the dismissal of his case. (Id.).
To date, Plaintiff has submitted neither an IFP application nor the filing fee. Plaintiff has
not otherwise communicated with the Court.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a pro se litigant is not excused
from complying with substantive and procedural law. Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir.
1984). The local rules state in pertinent part:

It is the duty of any party not represented by counsel to promptly notify the Clerk
and the other parties to the proceedings of any change in his or her address, to
monitor the progress of the case, and to prosecute or defend the action diligently. .
. . If any communication from the Court to a pro se plaintiff is not responded to
within thirty (30) days, the case may be dismissed without prejudice. Any party
proceeding pro se shall be expected to be familiar with and follow the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).

Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifically contemplate dismissal of a
case on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to prosecute or failed to comply with orders of the
court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (stating that
the district court possesses the power to dismiss sua sponte under Rule 41(b)). Pursuant to Rule
41(b), a district court has the power to dismiss an action based on “the plaintiff’s failure to comply
with any court order.” Brown v. Frey, 806 F.2d 801, 803-04 (8th Cir. 1986) (emphasis added).
III. ANALYSIS
Plaintiff has failed to comply with a Court Order. Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this
matter. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and Local Rule 5.5(c)(2)
Plaintiff’s Complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with the Court’s
Local Rules and Orders and failure to prosecute this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, I recommend that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
The parties have fourteen days from receipt of the Report and Recommendation in
which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely
objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The parties are
reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court.
DATED this 8th day of April 2021.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10632157. Public record. Not legal advice.